White House eyes annual 8% cut to defense budget through 2030
Source: Military Times via MSN
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered senior military officials to develop a five-year budget plan that would slash defense spending by 8% annually, a dramatic cut which could reshape military end-strength and readiness for decades.
In a memo first obtained by the Washington Post, Hegseth ordered the proposed cuts to be compiled by Feb. 24. Seventeen categories would be exempt from the budget reductions, including military operations at the southern U.S. border, nuclear weapons and missile defense programs, and acquisition of certain drones and munitions. Defense Department officials did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the plans.
The idea of steep defense cuts, originally reported by Bloomberg last week, is certain to draw opposition from lawmakers on Capitol Hill, where Republicans in recent weeks had been discussing major increases in defense spending in upcoming years – not significant cuts.
But Hegseth's budget plans appear to follow broader instructions from President Donald Trump to reduce government spending, including the dismissal of thousands of federal workers in the last few weeks.
Read more: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/white-house-eyes-annual-8-cut-to-defense-budget-through-2030/ar-AA1zosf8?ocid=BingNewsSerp
Two thoughts mainly
1) Not going to lie, I actually like this idea!
2) Now we will see if the R's in congress will grow a spine, if only because their handlers/lobbyists tell them to, and stand up to President Trump. If not we know they fear/admire the president more than their doners.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
eShirl
(19,065 posts)
kelly1mm
(5,617 posts)I think the cumulative 34% cut by 2030 is just about the perfect amount.
There are literally 100's of OP's here a month about how the defense department needs to be cut. We should not change that position just because President Trump is doing it.
underpants
(188,701 posts)Nothing gets you reelected like jobs.
They’ll never balance the Pentagon budget. That’s not overspending, that’s accounting systems and money that can’t be specified. Dark ops aren’t a lot but hammers don’t really cost $500.
On 9/10/2001 Rumsfeld (not a fan) held a press conference saying he wanted to clean/tighten up Pentagon accounting. He stated that 1,400 different accounting systems (I’d bet that not just softwares programs) used in the DoD.
I can’t remember or find it but there’s a name for the day the Pentagon balances the books. It’s in September given the fiscal year. They just make journal entries that make everything square. The books have to balance.
They are trying.
https://breakingdefense.com/2024/11/pentagon-fails-7th-audit-in-a-row-eyes-passing-grade-by-2028/
From his track record, I do not see him cutting the correct things. I see this as a ploy to get Dems on board, then bitch about how the Dems voted to make the US defenseless. I will put nothing nefarious against them. AFAIC, Dems should filibuster any and all bills proposed by the Cons until felon and his band of script kiddies are indicted for, at very least, breach of privacy of the American Public.
Progressive dog
(7,380 posts)will contribute more than NATO would.
BigMin28
(1,583 posts)That group still has some clout. I don't care for them, but they won't give up one dime without a battle.
kelly1mm
(5,617 posts)
slightlv
(4,820 posts)I can say I disagree with several of their objectives, but I can't bad mouth them. They paid their employees more than could be had on a GS scale. When the Army shifted my job from civilian to GS, I lost about 2/3 of my monthly salary. That was a huge cut to take at a time (during the mortgage crisis) when we could least absorb it. My husband's contract had ended, and at 61, he wasn't finding another job very easily.
I do agree that the defense budget should be cut, but I don't think I'm going to like WHERE they're going to make the cuts. Everyone thinks of the defense budget as this huge, amorphous beast. But what gets cut first is what impacts our soldiers in their off duty time... family, recreation opportunities, resilience training, and so much more. The family will probably end up paying more for on-base housing and costs will likely increase at the commissary. Remember, unless you're a well placed officer, soldiers really do not make a hell of a lot of money. And they sacrifice a lot for that amount of salary. But they always take the first hit.
Most bases I'm familiar with (posts), have had to absorb the cost of maintenance and building of onsite housing. A lot of what was done at first by the service was shifted to contractors. Then some of that shifted back to the service. Unfortunately by then, the private sector had raised prices high enough that other things got eaten in order to fund it. Things like printers, computers, software, and education. You have no idea how hard it was to get printer ink for one of our printers in the office! And I wasn't the only one complaining.
I'm a veteran, so I guess in a way I've got a dog in this fight, although I'm old enough now no one will hire me. But I'm proud of the people I worked with, both civilian and active duty, and I hate to see the hits that they're going to take on the chin in support of trumps "cost efficacy efforts."
kelly1mm
(5,617 posts)is the test I was waiting for to see if the Republicans should officially be renamed Trumplicans. If the R's are more afraid of Trump than they are of their doners then they are ready to drink the kool aid.
slightlv
(4,820 posts)wonder if we, ourselves, could serve it up in champagne glasses... along with a good dollop of caviar. Perhaps then they'll scarf it right down!
Wifes husband
(290 posts)This whole thing is designed to contract out government services. They cut government staffs, then when everything goes to crap, they hire contractors. This way they get credit for cutting the "lazy government workers", and later get to spread the wealth to contractors. In general, the contractors cost more.
In 35 years Federal service, including 4 years military, I never saw a single contractor give cost effective, quality service.
If the service was adequate, we paid through the nose.
I am sure there are exceptions, I just never saw any. The contractors in general are driven by the profit motive, not mission accomplishment.
The American people are just not aware that the majority of civil servants are actually trying to do a good job, and they are going to miss them when they are gone
Deminpenn
(16,530 posts)who aked me for information, got it, then passed it along to whoever they worked for as their own work. But working for a contractor was a nice gravy train for retired military and civil servants.
Wifes husband
(290 posts)If management had a tough decision, they would hire a consultant company. The company would write a large, many volume report that few would read, there would be a change in management or mission or some damn thing, and the report would sit on a shelf
Deminpenn
(16,530 posts)nt
Wifes husband
(290 posts)
bucolic_frolic
(48,696 posts)This is stupid and irresponsible. We won't be able to defend anything.
Septua
(2,715 posts)That's the thought I've had with all the alleged 'waste and fraud discoveries.' Huge departments with massive amounts of data and complicated software would take a small army of competent people, versed in the subject matter, weeks or even months, to analyze and evaluate the information and come up with any specific conclusions.
And besides that, the fired IGs had already been doing investigations into waste and abuse...
Everyone knows the true motive behind the Trump/Musk rampage...
COL Mustard
(7,209 posts)You want it bad? You might get it bad but it'll be their best effort in the time allowed.
I wouldn't want to be on the Joint Staff or in CAPE right now. They're the ones who will have to identify and lay out these cuts. Each service and COCOM will also have people prioritizing efforts. It won't be pretty.
Wifes husband
(290 posts)They will cut training, facilities maintenance, etc. They won't get 8%. More like 5%. Won't really save anything, but the creative accounting will be amazing. They will contract out anything they can in a hurry and lie about saving money. (Contracting never saves money.)
The only way to really cut spending is to cut mission or weapons systems and those have political protection.
Reagan pulled this crap, and the lies they told about the "savings" were unbelievable
underpants
(188,701 posts)especially Southern Republicans.
DoD money goes everywhere but in terms of bases and posts the South lives off it. Whole communities wouldn’t even exist without “Uncle Sucker” money as it’s joked about.
Killeen TX and Tidewater VA are prime examples. I spent my teen years in Tidewater. Great old friends there but it revolves around military and the shipyard. CIA training, Army, Navy (Marines), Air Force, Coast Guard- you name it.
kelly1mm
(5,617 posts)
Submariner
(12,863 posts)to keep up to, never mind stay ahead of, China's submarine and light destroyer construction. Not cutting it back. And surely the other services need bolstering to meet the building China threat.
kelly1mm
(5,617 posts)not increased. I am in favor of about a 1/3 cut in total defense spending between now and 2030. I don't think this position is out of the mainstream here on DU.
Wifes husband
(290 posts)Last edited Thu Feb 20, 2025, 02:12 AM - Edit history (1)
Anyone who has worked at the defense department at any managerial level is quite aware that the defense budget needs to be cut. One third would be about right.
The problem is, which third? Have to cut mission capabilities. As long as we plan on policing the world, it will cost.
We can do any thing, but not everything.
The problem is readiness. If you want to be able to respond quickly to damn near anything, it costs money.
We still have significant combat power in Europe and Korea, and I am not saying that is a bad thing, but it costs money. 11 carrier task groups cost money. Defending the world against evil is an admirable goal, one that I endorse, but a military as large and professional as ours is expensive and wasteful.
Getting us out of NATO and firing the inspectors doesn't help, but none of this makes any sense anyway
harumph
(2,521 posts)Shipwack
(2,465 posts)Surface ships are a dying breed*, but no one wants to say that out loud.
I'm sceptical of the Chinese Navy's prowess, but they are building a lot of vessels. "Quantity has a quality all its own."** - Stalin
*I acknowledge that surface ships are the most effective way to deliver men or supplies. They're still extremely vulnerable; I have no solution to this...
**Then again, you have to have a certain minimum of quality, as Putin has found out.
in2herbs
(3,479 posts)be alive in 2030. He certainly won't be president. But, why did they not slash and burn the budget during his term?
kelly1mm
(5,617 posts)in2herbs
(3,479 posts)kelly1mm
(5,617 posts)
SharonAnn
(13,946 posts)
bronxiteforever
(9,966 posts)billionaire relief fund. He needs to have cuts available so he run up the bill without downgrading the us bond rating.
But it is in the realm of possible that a six time bankrupt conman and a drunk Sec Defense can do a good thing but really I wouldn’t count on it.
Strelnikov_
(7,906 posts)This is all Kabuki to get the billionaire relief fund passed.
Cause, as we all know, the billionaires ain’t got nothin cause the poor got it so good, those Lucky Duckies.
The Roux Comes First
(1,620 posts)The bloating of the defense department budget has been beyond obscene for many decades. Absurd weapons programs, pet "pork" projects of little or no national value to buy the support of individual vote-greedy congressionals, and etc.
Alas, we can see from the first of these tea leaves that none of the economizing will be directed at the actual waste and fraud, since it is the wealthy lying fraudsters who are promulgating this supposed cost-cutting. They seem to have a gift for poisoning the most useful parts of the bureaucracy, despite their obvious stupidity and incompetence.
Wifes husband
(290 posts)One of the problems is the contractors are not stupid. They spread the wealth over as many congressional districts as possible so that the politicians have a vested interest in voting for them.
Don't even have to bribe them.
How many times has the defense department tried to reduce or eliminate a weapon system and Congress over rules them?
It happens, and I am not defending the defense department. The system is just not geared for waste elimination
cadoman
(1,079 posts)Maybe Russia is planning a ground invasion near the end of his term?
kelly1mm
(5,617 posts)
mwooldri
(10,549 posts)But I do know that European nations are going to increase their defence spending, because the USA isn't a reliable partner anymore and they will be planning in case the self proclaimed King of America decides that the USA will withdraw from NATO. Which looks honestly to be a more likely possibility in my opinion.
Response to kelly1mm (Original post)
GP6971 This message was self-deleted by its author.
NoMoreRepugs
(10,978 posts)As per usual Republicans are going to grow the debt geometrically.
Wifes husband
(290 posts)They tried this with Star Wars during the Reagan era. Almost total waste of money.
No matter how good a defense system is, an attacker can always build more weapons to attack it.
For example if the defense system can handle 100 missiles, the attacker builds 200
harumph
(2,521 posts)Strong countries don't 'fall' into wars - it's the weakened ones. And you're out of your mind if you TRUST Trump et al.
to make wise decisions on the portions to cut. Everything he touches dies. Just because cutting the defense budget has
been on some democrats wish list, this is the wrong admin. to be trusted with that job.
kelly1mm
(5,617 posts)saying you personally ever said that but I would call that the mainstream position here on DU. If this goes through (highly unlikely) and the cumulative 34-37% cuts to the Pentagon are realized almost every sector of defense spending will be affected - including readiness. But I am not changing my position that defense spending needs to be cut (IMO by about 33% total) just because President Trump is the one who proposed it.
harumph
(2,521 posts)Whatever changes are made will be made with the INTENT to weaken the country. So, I'll support a democrat making reductions,
but not the current admin. Trump wants to fuck the US. Would you buy cookies if Trump were selling them on the street simply
because they were chocolate chip and you liked chocolate chip cookies? Hell no.
Bluethroughu
(6,882 posts)JBTaurus83
(90 posts)Folds to an idea like this, they will not stand up to Dump on anything. I truly would be shocked if this passed a closely divided house and senate.
kelly1mm
(5,617 posts)
John1956PA
(3,718 posts)It might be difficult to get all GOP Congress members on board with this proposal.
cstanleytech
(27,369 posts)They've been a drag on the country ever since then as the money spent on keeping all of them open would have been better spent on infrastructure.
cstanleytech
(27,369 posts)Otherwise it's going to make things worse as defense contractors will fire people which means less money into the economy.
totodeinhere
(13,526 posts)But where I differ from this is I don't want the savings to go to support more tax cuts for the rich. I want the saving to be reinvested in social programs and infrastructure.
kelly1mm
(5,617 posts)less deficit spending I would be fine with that. However I agree with you that there are other things we could shift that spending to that could be a better option.
hueymahl
(2,737 posts)Devil is in the details of course. But we do not need to spend anywhere near what we are currently spending
kelly1mm
(5,617 posts)
Northern_Light
(29 posts)So, orange boy wants to cut defense spending by 8%.
He's also said that NATO members should increase defense spending to 5% of GDP from the current goal of 2% (In 2023, the United States spent 3.4%).
Hard to really know what he means or if he knows what he means.
Turbineguy
(38,760 posts)
DonCoquixote
(13,771 posts)This might actually be the thing that starts the Elephants to kill each other, if s, good, then we make sure the next democrat that gets in keeps it, and KILLS the billionaire tax cuts.
Xolodno
(6,858 posts)They've been complaining for ages about having to buy military equipment they don't need as its mandated by Congress and not getting what they really want.
Old Crank
(5,271 posts)The Ukraine war has shown how useless they are. Not even close to cost effectiveness.
jmowreader
(51,871 posts)...and say one of the first things he's going to cut is subsistence. No more food allowance, no more mess halls, no more commissaries.
I WAS going to say he was going to get rid of the Defense Logistics Agency and contract out their functions to the private sector, but Musk would kill him if he did - DLA is America's sole source for rocket fuels.
Deminpenn
(16,530 posts)DoD went through a BRAC 30 years ago that resulted in many base closures and consolidations. That's why it's "Joint Base Andrews" and no longer called Andrews Air Force Base.
Most people don't realize how much of DoD's business has been shifted to the major defense contractors of which there are fewer and fewer because of industry consolidation. Things like IT support and management have been contracted out, too.That's how it was at my command. Our software was supported by a team of contractors, not career civil servants. The way DoD got, and gets, around retrictions on contracting out is to use the omnibus contracts GSA has for these services.
You can buy fewer airplanes, ships an tanks, but every time you do, the cost per weapons system goes up as you spread the cost over fewer total units. All the cost and pricing for a new system is based on the usually unrealistic number of systems planned for procurement over x number of years. That planned number rarely happens. "Rosey Scenario"'s name was often jokingly invoked when discussing this phenomenon.
The lowest hanging fruit for cuts is always O&M, operations and maintenace, because it's today's money spent today. That is all the funding for parts, repairs, overhaul, tooling, manuals and all the other things that affect daily readiness.
Further, DoD's accounting system is byzantine, to say the least. At my command, at the start of each new fiscal year, we got pages and pages of accounting lines to be used for all the specific things we bought for each specific system. Adding to the financial confusion is the individual price of systems and parts never depreciates.
IbogaProject
(4,064 posts)This is the third rail of politics as the Military industrial complex is basically welfare for the rich and it gives them a block of loyal voters, not the soldiers per say but all the contractor minions.
maxsolomon
(35,847 posts)If they balk at any of MFer's BS, it will be this.
If they do cut, I can guarantee they'll cut out muscle and not the fat. Because they're fucking stupid.
JCMach1
(28,367 posts)They will hollow out the muscle and bone of the US military in favor of tech, some of it unproven and expensive
alarimer
(16,845 posts)Speaking of waste, the Petagon hasn't passed an audit in forever.
Even just not increasing the military budget will help. I'm not a fan of just perpetually increasing it, but I don't know about the 8% per year. That sounds like a lot.